The Lord Bishop of Winchester: My Lords, it is a privilege to follow the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, and the noble Lord, Lord Lester. While I align myself with them in agreeing with the Lord Chancellor that the aims of the Bill are laudable, I also agree with them that it is liable to have unacceptable consequences. If I may say so as non-lawyer, what the Lord Chancellor described as the "narrow gap" that should be filled seems to me, as I try to understand the matters, narrower than can be filled and the filling of it is likely to be very dangerous and to have a series of unacceptable consequences.
	The more I prepared for this debate, the more surprised I became that this Bill can be proposed at all in this form by those who carefully read—I am sure that its proposers have read it—the report of the Select Committee on Religious Offences 2003 and the debate on the Take Note Motion in your Lordships' House on 22 April last year. Among the speeches on that occasion, I remember in particular that of the committee's chairman, the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross. The noble Lord, Lord Lester, has already quoted from that report the remarks of the Mr Sarabjee, the then Indian Attorney-General, and I will not repeat them, but they were one of many powerful notes in that report.
	Before I go on, I think that your Lordships would want me to note the absence from the House through most regrettable illness of our friend, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth, who was a member of that Select Committee. I anticipate that the House would want to send him its good wishes and its trust that he will soon be back on his feet and in good voice among us.
	It seemed to me prudent to take the opportunity to discuss the questions in this Bill with a friend and neighbour in Hampshire who is a distinguished Muslim lawyer and an adviser of the Muslim Council of Britain, but I was still not persuaded that the Bill was not likely to raise expectations among Muslim communities which the Government would regret having raised when they were not able to meet them. It seems to me—this point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, and I am not going to do more than mention it—that the Bill places the Attorney-General of the time in a most undesirable position of great complexity and pressure. If passed in anything like its present form, it will lead almost certainly to self-censorship on many fronts.
	The Church of England had ample experience in the last third of the nineteenth century of the taking of religious matters and religious communities to the courts. Neither the courts nor the Government, nor the faith communities, I submit, should be taking the risk that this Bill takes of placing the courts in positions of adjudication in matters of religion. So I find myself, with many Christian groups and with many of our secular groups—poets, writers, academics, comedians and a range of people—very concerned indeed about this Bill as it stands.
	On the Bill itself and its Explanatory Notes, it seems to me that Clause 3(3)—the powers for the Secretary of State in connection with the coming into force of the Bill—is deplorably widely drawn, especially in the kinds of circumstances in which we find ourselves today, to which the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, referred earlier. These are not situations in which it is appropriate for Ministers of the Crown to have that kind of latitude. It is most unwise that they should want it and that they should receive it at a time when more than one faith community is feeling under pressure in this society and culture. I also wonder whether it is wise for this Bill to be brought forward in Ramadan.
	There are details in the schedule, to which reference has already been made, that seem to me to be stacked with potential for trouble, including the recurrent words "likely" and "any". In the terrorism Bill, published yesterday, it is noticeable that the drafting is a great deal tighter and less sweeping than the drafting in this Bill. Of course, it is the case, as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said earlier, that sharply, strongly expressed disagreement, ridicule or criticism, however painful to religious believers and others, is generally not hatred.
	With words such as "likely" and "any" in the Bill, it seems that it will be extremely difficult for the distinction, which he sought to draw, between people and faith to be upheld among those who might hope that they can make use of this Bill. I believe that it is much more likely to attract would-be martyrs of various sorts and that it will not achieve the ends that it seeks to achieve.
	As I understand it as a non-lawyer, the powers available in a range of statutes are sufficient to deal with what the Government, at certain points justifiably and at certain points questionably, judge they need to do. The really critical matters are care, respect, interpretive charity, learning to express disagreement within friendship and appreciation. I judge that this Bill, unless it is radically amended so as to change its character, will damage those matters rather than assist them.

Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I am against the Bill. I should perhaps explain that, while I am a member of the National Secular Society, I have always supported the right of people who have a religion to practise it and to proselytise. That is not an issue here. Yet the Government have, in my view, failed to identify any activity which would be illegal under the Bill and is not already illegal under existing law. It is also draconian: the maximum penalty is seven years in prison, with prosecution thresholds very low. Most importantly, it could severely limit freedom of expression—both directly and through self-censorship, as people become increasingly worried about speaking their minds.
	In this respect I have a particular concern. There are a number of religions—and the fundamentalist strain of Islam is one—where the attitude to women is quite unacceptable. In this country, generations of women have campaigned and fought for their rights, which we now take for granted. We have equality laws, and a commission to enforce those rights—but the fundamentalist strain of Islam does not acknowledge that women have such rights. The more extreme versions condone violence against women. In countries where Sharia law is practised, young teenage girls have been publicly executed for "offences against chastity". Women are forced to wear the jilbab whether they want to or not—and many women do not want to, with all that it entails.
	In this country, when a girl pupil went to the High Court and won the right to wear the jilbab to her school, it was presented as a victory for Muslim women. Of course, most of us agreed that she should be allowed to wear it if she wished, but many Muslim women did not see it like that. One wrote to a newspaper columnist to say:
	"My sisters and me could always tell our Dad and uncles that we weren't allowed to wear the jilbab. Once the rules were changed, that excuse was not possible any more, so my sisters have been terrified into wearing this cumbersome and dehumanising garment all day against their wishes."
	It should not therefore be assumed that all Muslim women are happy to submit to restrictions in the name of their religion.
	I read the Q-News magazine, a very interesting Muslim journal. It sometimes has letters and articles from women, demonstrating that they are not prepared to accept the restraints imposed upon them within their communities. A recent letter talks of the terrible situation of women under male authority in much of the Islamic world. Muslim men, the article says, have so consistently violated their position of authority and leadership that drastic measures are now required for women to retrieve their self-respect and control over their lives. That is unfortunately becoming clear in Iraq, where the elections have been regarded as a great democratic achievement. Yet I notice that there were two separate queues to vote, one of men and the other of women—and all the women were clad head to foot in the jilbab. There was talk of an Islamic state applying Sharia law, and women are now having to struggle to retain the rights they had, even under Saddam, under the personal status law. That does not bode well for women's rights, and I understand a women's committee there has appealed to the UN women's committee for assistance.
	The point is that the suppression of women's rights is all done in the name of religion. Not all Muslims—or leading Muslims—feel the same way. Dr Zaki Badawi, director of the Muslim College, has said in a recently published interview—
	"The main development for the Muslim community in this country is that the traditional position of women will have to change".
	He has this to say about the legislation we are now considering.
	"Religious beliefs themselves should be completely open to criticism. My concern is only when they use an individual's religion as a way to prevent them holding particular jobs or going to certain places. This is a basic equality and anti-discrimination policy issue".
	He is, of course, quite right about that. We have already debated the Equality Bill, which is establishing an over-arching commission to ensure enforcement. That prevents discrimination—in the provision of goods and services, and employment on grounds of religion—in the way that Dr Badawi recommends, and has been supported generally. When I spoke on that Bill, I said that we did not need this Bill on religious hatred as well. If it goes unamended onto the statute book it will encourage those very fundamentalists who seek to maintain their misogynist approach on the basis of its being a religious requirement. It will strengthen their hand, as against those with the moderate and humane approach of Dr Badawi.
	Any attack on the way religion treats women will be regarded by some of these clerics as an incitement to religious hatred. This has already led to violence in the Netherlands, with the murder of the film-maker Van Gogh by an Islamic fundamentalist in response to a film about Islamic attitudes to women. The Bill should not pass this House as it stands.

Lord Hunt of Wirral: My Lords, we understand why the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, cannot be here and we look forward to seeing her again soon, as we do the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth to whom we wish a speedy recovery.
	What an interesting debate this has been. We have had two very enjoyable maiden speeches. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes of Cumnock, on his speech. He is rightly proud of Hearts, although the record got stuck in one or two places. I was reminded of the words of Alfred, Lord Tennyson:
	"'Tis only noble to be good. Kind hearts are more than coronets".
	All I will say is that he should not take too much of the credit for the performance of the team, because I think that the players and the manager might have had something to do with it.
	He also strongly criticised that independent-minded broadcaster Jim Naughtie. I once did that and I regretted it. I hope he will not. But he comes with a distinguished background. I recall debating him in the 60s when I think he was president of the Scottish Union of Students. He was always a bit of a slippery customer, so he has quite a track record. But I pay tribute to the four years of service which no one has yet mentioned that he gave at the Department for International Development, where he did much good before he was promoted in 2001. All I will say is that if that speech was, according to the Companion, rightly uncontroversial, I can hardly wait for his more controversial speeches.
	I am particularly pleased to welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Corston. She has had a very distinguished career. I do not know whether she also will recall that I featured in the West Country in one party and she was the organiser in the then Labour Party. She has had a very illustrious career, particularly in Select Committees: agriculture followed by home affairs and so forth. I notice that in her recreations she is a tap dancer. I have to say that rather like her colleague she provided some support as they both danced around in support of the Bill, but they were the only speakers—apart from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor—in the first 15 speeches who showed any support for the Bill. We had to wait for the 15th speech and I hope that they will not suffer from this isolation in future, because I have to report to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor—we understand why he had to leave the debate at various stages—that 80 per cent of the speakers have been overwhelmingly opposed to the Bill in its present form. The Government should not be surprised by that, but the noble and learned Lord missed the comment of my noble friend Lady Flather, who described it as a piddling little Bill. Using more conservative language, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwell called it unnecessary, unwise with unintended consequences.
	I noticed that the noble and learned Lord entered the Chamber during the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Peston, when he heard some of it but missed the opening, which was a devastating broadside. The noble Lord described the Bill as the most illiberal Bill ever introduced in his experience. I just did not want the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to go to bed tonight without knowing what his noble friend had said. I do not know why the noble and learned Lord avoided answering the very simple question I put about how this sits alongside the Government's intentions so far as the alleged preachers of hate are concerned. We still await the full context so that we can see the overall picture. I hope the Minister will respond on that point.
	The Bill never survived the speeches at the start of the debate of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, and the noble Lord, Lord Lester. They produced a devastating critique. Many other speakers have raised subtle questions about the Bill which I hope the Government will seek to answer.
	There has been a strong sense of déjà vu about the debate. As the noble Lord, Lord Desai, reminded us, we have been here before—we have exchanged views on these proposals on several occasions—and the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, reminded us that this had also been debated in 1936, 1965 and 1981. So we come to this issue with some sense of history.
	On this occasion, none of us should harbour any illusions. In the wake of the general election in May, Ministers have made it plain that they believe they have a mandate to legislate in this area. Indeed, I noticed that as well as quoting—as the noble Baronesses, Lady Cox and Lady O'Cathain did—from this outrageous letter from someone describing themselves as "Labour's Home Secretary" during the election campaign, it was interesting to hear the words of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, on 29 September at the Labour Party conference, when he confessed, after eight years of new Labour, that a real democratic deficit is developing. I agree with him that it is. When he seeks a mandate for this measure, he himself has conceded that less than half the Asian electorate voted.
	But, of course, it is quite wise to refer to the terms of the Labour manifesto commitment because it concludes that we must find out,
	"about how best to balance protection, tolerance and free speech".
	This changes nothing in our deeply-held reservations about the substance of this egregious Bill. We shall do everything we can to prevent the Government upsetting the crucial balance between protection and freedom of expression. We shall also continue to challenge Ministers on whether the legislation satisfies—as many speakers have pointed out—their own stated ambitions for it. We shall also ask the difficult questions about why religion and adherents of religion are to receive this special treatment in law. So I approach this debate very much in a spirit of sorrow rather than anger.
	There have been some very important contributions. I share the outrage at the personal attack suffered by the noble Lord, Lord Chan. It was the kind of attack directed against me and others many years ago when we fought for the rights of the Ugandan Asians in the early 1970s. But the noble Lord pointed out, as I have on several occasions, that existing laws cover possible criminal prosecutions in circumstances of that nature. As the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, said, the proposed legislation is a straitjacket; it is the wrong way ahead.
	My noble friend Lord Taylor gave one of the best speeches I have ever heard in this House. He told us that wisdom is better than strength. How right he is. He suffered a lot from prejudice in his personal experiences. I greatly admire the resolute way in which he has always pursued what he believes.
	As the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, reminded us, it is the opinion-formers, the opinion-leaders, who have helped to fashion our multi-racial society. We have every right to be proud of that. I hope that the Government will think again and listen to the many speakers who not only oppose the Bill but ask them to withdraw it. They have failed to honour the commitment given to the noble Lord, Lord Lester, to consult. They have rushed into this Bill and they are already beginning to regret it.
	As the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, has just affirmed, we will continue to press for reassurances. The noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, underwent what I can only describe as barracking from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. The major point that the noble Lord was making—that freedom of speech is essential for the advancement of knowledge—seemed to have escaped the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. I hope that the Government will reflect upon those points.
	At Second Reading in another place, the Home Secretary said:
	"If we can find a form of words during consideration of the Bill in Committee and elsewhere that provides further reassurance . . . that freedom of expression is not inhibited, we are flexible about examining amendments to that effect".—[Official Report, Commons, 21/6/05; col. 669.]
	I was sad to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, yesterday, that the Government do not propose to move any amendments in Committee. Some of the fears expressed by noble Lords opposite are borne out. The Government intend to push the Bill onto the statute book in its present form. I hope that the powerful appeal made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford for the Government to consider amendments will be heeded.
	I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Lester, will be moving the amendment for which he is rightly given credit. The Government must cease to be intransigent on the Bill. They will not get their Bill if they maintain their present approach.
	I am not able to do justice to the many speakers who have contributed, particularly on the issue of artistic freedom, which raises huge issues about which scrupulously enlightened organisations such as PEN have briefed us. There is a double whammy in the Bill and I will deal with that in Committee.
	I was particularly impressed by the speech given by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, and her concern for the effect on the book industry. The Bill has unintended consequences about which many noble Lords have spoken.
	The Government must have a more open approach. The noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, warned us that the Bill will encourage and strengthen fundamentalism. That is a real worry.
	The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, asked the very relevant question about what we are going to do about nutty religions.
	The most devastating point made by my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern was that, because of the lack of definition in the Bill, the perversion of Islam will be regarded as a religion. What the Prime Minister has been railing against will be protected by the Bill.
	I should point out to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor that I have committed him to providing a Keeling schedule. As I understood it, he will reprint the Public Order Act 1986 in the form as it is amended so that we can all understand the wider context. If I am wrong, and the noble and learned Lord is not going to respond to Sir Edward Keeling's brilliant idea in 1937, perhaps the Minister will tell us.
	In conclusion, I think I speak for almost everyone on these Benches when I say that the Bill seems intrusive, despotic and is likely to be utterly, woefully, counter-productive unless it is radically amended. No matter what is supposedly intended, if the Bill is enacted in this form, as everyone has already conceded, it will restrict freedom of speech and expression. I never thought I would see the day when a government could seriously turn the act of insulting someone's religion into a criminal offence. I have already mentioned that the Labour Party has sought to exploit this legislation and the opposition to it of other parties to its own political advantage. No generation of politicians has the right to play fast and loose with our fundamental freedoms in the way that it has, especially in the lack of any consensus between the parties.
	In his famous message to Congress at the beginning of 1941, President Roosevelt spoke of four essential human freedoms: freedom of speech and expression; freedom of every person to worship God in his own way; freedom from want; and freedom from fear. Whatever the motivation behind the Bill, it fails the Roosevelt test because it will spread fear and restrict freedom of speech and expression in ways that we can scarcely begin to imagine. I hope that the Government will think again.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, we do not have a problem with that. Perhaps noble Lords are seeing a problem that is not there. I wish to press on because noble Lords have asked a number of questions. I want to try to respond to as many as I can.
	The noble Lord, Lord Lester, has been keen for us to produce figures on arrests nationally. The Metropolitan Police has advised us that between 7 July and 23 September this year, so far as concerns cases involving racial motivation, there have been some 393 accusations in relation to offences reported and 33 religiously motivated accusations within its area.
	With regard to prosecutions or convictions, the Crown Prosecution Service has advised that nationally for the three months from July to September this year, there were some 2,071 prosecutions of which 1,533 resulted in conviction. Those figures comprise all offences with a racist or religious dimension. I hope that that information helps the noble Lord in framing his approach to the Bill.
	With regard specifically to prosecutions for incitement to racial hatred, I can advise the House that one has commenced since 7 July and is continuing. Seven defendants, six of whom were co-defendants in the same case, have been convicted since that date. The cases against all seven defendants began before 7 July. So there is important activity. But in some ways the figures suggest that much more needs to be done; and that is why we adopt the view that we do.
	Noble Lords asked about the position of the Attorney-General and his consent for prosecutions under the measure. Under the existing racial hatred offence, there is a requirement for the Attorney-General's consent. I have not heard an argument that suggests that that does not work well. It has not caused problems since that legislation was introduced by the Conservatives in 1986. I have not heard it argued from opposition Benches, whether Liberal Democrat or Conservative, that the Attorney-General's consent should be removed from racial hatred offences.
	I wish to tackle the issue of the drafting of the Bill. A number of noble Lords said that the Bill was too wide. The noble Lord, Lord Lester, said that it was too sweeping. The noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Carey, said that the Bill was loosely drafted. It is worth reminding ourselves that the Bill uses the same terms as those used for the existing racial hatred offences. The racial offences do not define hatred. No one has suggested that the existing offences are loosely drafted or that the words used in that legislation need to be further defined. The courts have had no difficulty with the existing range of offences and their understanding of them. Therefore, in so far as the language and terminology have been used in legislation of a parallel nature, the law has worked well and the meaning of that legislation is clear.
	The noble Viscount, Lord Colville, asked an interesting and valuable question about how courts will balance human rights in cases. The noble Viscount deserves an answer. We believe that his question raises some interesting points. I should like to take a longer look at those issues and write to the noble Viscount so that we can give him a fuller explanation.
	We were also asked whether the Government would consider repealing the existing blasphemy laws. The noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, raised that. Some religious and non-religious groups have suggested that the common law offences of blasphemy and blasphemous libel should be repealed. In the debate on the Queen's Speech earlier this year, the Home Secretary stated that he was prepared to consider that in the future but wished to consider it separately from this legislation and in conjunction with faith communities. I think that that was a wise comment, having heard some of the complaints about the lack of consultation on aspects of the Bill. There are no plans at present to abolish blasphemy, but it is important to give it longer-term consideration.

House adjourned at twenty three minutes before eleven o'clock.
	Tuesday, 11 October 2005.